9.6In general, applications in relation to P’s welfare will be for specific declarations and/or decisions, rather than for the appointment of a deputy. As set out in chapter 3, the court has the power to make decisions on P’s behalf1MCA 2005 s16(1). or appoint a deputy to make them for P.2MCA 2005 s16(2). However, it is clear that a decision of the court is preferred to the appointment of a deputy3MCA 2005 s16(4)(a). and the powers conveyed upon a deputy should be as limited as possible.4MCA 2005 s16(4)(b). These powers are limited by Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 s20. For example, a deputy cannot prohibit contact between P and a named person,5MCA 2005 s20(2) and Re TZ (No 2) [2014] EWHC 973 (COP), [2014] COPLR 159 at para 83. or refuse consent to life-sustaining treatment.6MCA 2005 s20(5). The Code of Practice indicates that the appointment of a health and welfare deputy would be appropriate where a series of linked decisions will be needed over time, or where someone with final authority to make decisions will be needed, or where there is a history of family disputes.7Code of Practice para 8.38. There is a difference of judicial opinion as to whether a health and welfare deputy should only be appointed in the most serious cases, but the statistics show that the courts are reluctant to appoint such deputies.8In 2015, for instance, 276 health and welfare deputies were appointed. By contrast, 16,528 property and affairs deputies were appointed. A welfare deputyship should not be sought, therefore, if the underlying decision that the deputy wishes to make is a ‘one off’ decision, such as a change of residence. A welfare deputyship, however, might be appropriate where there is a need to make decisions over time about the level and frequency of contact in P’s best interests with a family member.

9.7In many cases, the issues that the court needs to address will relate both to P’s health and welfare and to P’s property and affairs. These ‘mixed’ applications are addressed in paras 7.124–7.128.